From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Islam (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former good article nominee Tawhid was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
May 21, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed


/Archive 1

Sufism, hadithism, atheism, 19[edit]

Sufism is association, and no authority on monotheism. The only monotheism is dualism. "Only one unique God over all worlds". Hadithism is also false. The only word of God, is The Quran. And atheistic statements such as random origins, evolution, abiogenesis, infinite universe, are false. And the statement 19 angels over hell should be accepted, and not associated with any numerology. And any similar things. Infact the "faith confession" should be changed to, "There is no god, but God over all worlds, and The Quran is His Word." To get the right idea, of what attitude to Islam, one should have.

Peace Be With You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review:Failed[edit]

This article is not complete. From the technical viewpoint it should be rearranged and expanded. I spoke with Aminz and he accepted to withdraw the article at this point.[1]--Seyyed(t-c) 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In Sha Allah, I'll write my review in detail as soon as possible.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated. Jazak Allah.Bless sins (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an unusual case and I can't write a review for it. I want to add a section about Muslim's interpretation.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Concerning the improvements on Tawhid: I think there could be a little more explanation of the textualist stance, because the current section all too easily equates it mostly with tashbih - which is only one perspective. I do believe that bi-la kayf was a significant part of the textualist stance. There is much more coverage given to the other two camps, namely the Ash'arites and Mu'tazilites. The textualist stance was codified primarily by al-Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal, which is why almost all early Shafi'ites and Hanbalites were traditionalist in their stance (the Hanafite school, in contrast, was much more accommodating to Mu'tazilism). The article doesn't really mention that al-Ash'ari himself changed over the years and eventually sought the approval of the textualist Hanbalites of his time with his book al-Ibana. The early Asharites too were substantially different in what they accepted (i.e. much closer to the textualists) as compared to later Asharites, which may be due to the increased influence of Kullabism. While there were indeed some who went to excesses in affirmation of attributes in the textualist school, it was pretty much a minority. So it might be a nice idea to draw upon a larger pool of reliable sources to get a more complete perspective. ITAQALLAH 12:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a good source for textualist stance. Please help us with it. Corbin says it implicitly but the al-Ash'ari's position is not the issue of the article. The article discuss about Ash'ari school. Howevere I try to add something about the different interpretations among each school. I don't know what does Kullabism mean?--Seyyed(t-c) 12:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there might be a few articles by G. Makdisi and others about this... but I'll have a look around. Re: Kullabism, see: Ibn Kullab. ITAQALLAH 12:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Itaqallah does make a good point; the way I had learned it, textualists/Atharis were distinct from the mushabbihah/anthropomorphists. As for 'Abdullah ibn Said ibn Kullab, i'm not sure where we could find stuff on him but his early influence was strong. Also, I noticed that there isn't a section for the Maturidis either. I initially thought they were like the Ash'aris with a different founder, but I believe they have some points of differing. We could possibly have a subsection for them too, don't they compose a sizeable portion of the Muslims in India/Pakistan? MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that each of the theological schools has changed during history. We can write a historical description.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could write like, brief historical summaries followed by the main article Wiki links to the individual articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, regarding tanzih, while the basic principle of trancendence is an accepted one, the connotation of tanzih in kalami debate itself is something much more complicated and specific, and it wouldn't be fair to say that all schools agree on the same interpretation here. ITAQALLAH 12:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone put any more thought into this? It seems rather biased to just declare that tashbih is Athari extremism rather than a separate school entirely. It's certainly a comparison the Atharis would reject. By that reasoning, you could also say that Ash'ari extremism is equivalent to the beliefs of Jahm bin Safwan. Which would also be a biased claim and one the Ash'aris would reject. I hope the analogy makes sense. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


This part doesn't sound good in the article. I think it's irrelevant or it should be rewritten. --Seyyed(t-c) 16:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. It seems someone went through the article under the impression that "Tawhid" meant "belief in God", rather than "belief in the oneness of God", as can be seen in the "Theological Arguments" section. Babloyi (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

If you feel this article should be at a different title, do a proper {{move}} request, seeking consensus first, don't just move it about as AAA765 (talk · contribs) did. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange, unecessary language[edit]

In this it says that "Islam has an uncompromising monotheism that makes it disctinct from other religions". There are other religions that are uncompromisingly monotheistic. This is unecessary and controversy-provoking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Islam has an uncompromising monotheism. Monotheism is a character shared by other major religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashPark (talkcontribs) 15:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The reference to Turner (2006) after the controversial statement "Islam has an uncompromising monotheism [that makes it distinct from other religions -- old language, changed 7/22/11 to -> SOME other major religions -- thank you for that change]: The reference to Turner(2006) is now in question. First the reference is not complete. Who is Turner and what did s/he write? Second if Turner did not say that Islam shares the character of uncompromising monotheism with other major religions, the reference would be in error as it does not back the statement. Since the reader cannot check Turner's writing at this point, I ask that the reference to Turner be removed or completed. WashPark (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect view attributed to Ash'ari school[edit]

This article states that the Ash'aris believe "the Muslim must believe that God really does possess hands, face and so on, but without 'asking how'." This is not correct. The correct Ash'ari opinion is that the God possess a "wajh" but we do not know how (and so on for all terms that have anthropomorphic meanings when taken literally). The Ash'ari opinion considers the verses these terms are in to be among the Mutashabia verses of the Quran (verses meant to be taken figuratively) and so a person has two options. Option 1 is to leave the word as it it in Arabic and say "it has a meaning that we don't know but its meaning befits Allah." Option 2 is to ascribe a meaning that is figurative but falls within the clear verses of the Quran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


How about we merge this article with God in Islam? (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see that happening eventually, but not in its current state. As it stands right now, this article is full of a lot of rubbish. Tons of claims cited solely by the Qur'an in addition to other primary sources. The result is that most of this article - yes, most, I will stand by that comment - consists of original research. Removing so much content, however, is bound to be controversial. It needs to be done in steps and with much discussion, and by the time such a long process is completed I am sure that very little material will be left. At that point, merging might be possible as Tawhid refers to the understanding of God in Islam. But given all the work that is needed, this will take a very, very long time unless more editors are willing to help sort out this mess of an article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A few months on and this article is still filled with primary sources which seem as though they're trying to convince the reader of the editor's viewpoint. If no one else fixes it, I may have to start reducing material in this article soon - as it is, it comes off as way too polemical. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It's been a year and this article is still mostly full of lengthy quotes of primary sources. I'm going to chop away now per both WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOFULLTEXT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@MezzoMezzo: Why should it be merged? God In Islam Is Allah, on the other had "tawheed" is the belief that He is One.There's a difference if u ask me.
Well there is no difference if you ask me, or the guy who suggested the merge, and probably half a dozen editors. Please try to contribute positively to the discussion or your comment will just be ignored. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


I've added a reference to the strict and common etymology.Cpsoper (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Copy pasting of primary sources[edit]

User:Islamic11111, after I removed large portions of the article which were merely copy pastes of primary sources you reverted without discussion. As can be seen above in the talk page - and as I pointed to in my initial edits - large copy paste jobs of entire primary sources (in this case, passages from religious scripture) are not allowed per Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and WP:NOTESSAY. The way in which these sources were presented also gravitated toward a third violation, of Wikipedia:No original research to be specific.
In addition, your edit summaries were quite aggressive and combative; you told me I don't own Wikipedia, yet my edits were based on sound reasing backed by site policy while you have refused to provide any justification for your edits at all, short of a snide comment on my talk page that I shouldn't revert your edits because they "are Islam." Please review WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND before doing anything else, and then respond here next. I can see that you're new on Wikipedia so there is some leeway but from your end, you also need to recognize that there are policies and guidelines with which you are not familiar. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've written the article myself, not coping it somewhere and pasting it on wikipedia. It's taken from credible articles about tawhid. Islamic11111 (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Islamic11111:, you're lying. I made a note above over a year ago that I would be removing copy-pastes of primary sources. I did so over multiple edits, and at 05:00 on 20 November 2014, you reinserted all of them. Every single passage you reinserted - every single one without exception - was based on direct copy pastes of an English translation of the Qur'an. You didn't write the Qur'an, therefore it is simply copy paste of something else - a primary religious scripture to be specific. Please reread the one guideline and two policies I linked to above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


Should there be a section on etymology of the word "Tawheed". I'm trying one. Please list the problems here after I have made my edit